Jeffrey "Garrett" Peterson & Anthony Meely

Updated: Nov 15

2020-09-21 Ada Complaint
Download PDF • 81KB

Above: Police Body Cam footage from Officer Tyler Pogue on Anthony Meely.

At or around 9:45 am, on or around 21 September 2019, in order to avoid a confrontation,

Garrett asked Megan Timms to move out.

11. That person called police, alleging some of her belongings were still inside Garrett’s


12. Defendant Beale arrived at the 900 block of Arlington Street in Ada, Oklahoma shortly

before 10:00 a.m. Upon his arrival, Timms complained that Garret had evicted her from

a nearby apartment and still had her personal property.

13. Defendant Beale knew, or should have known, that person did not have a right to

authorize entry into Garret’s property. Defendant Beale asked Timms to open the door of

the property she had just been asked to leave.

14. Defendant Beale did not identify himself as a police officer or ask Garrett for permission

to enter the premises.

15. No warrant or exigent circumstances permitting the entry existed.

16. When Garrett noticed his door being opened, he lawfully tried to and did in fact close and

lock his door.

17. At that time, Defendant Beale allegedly identified himself as a police officer and asked

for the woman’s property.

18. Garrett agreed to bag all of her things and leave it for her outside. While Garrett was

gathering the person’s belongings Defendant Beale continued to beat on Garrett’s door

and made efforts to force his way into Mr. Peterson’s apartment. Defendant Beale’s

physical efforts were accompanied by verbal threats that have no basis in law. At this

point in time Defendant Beale did not have a warrant, consent, or any other lawful basis

to enter Mr. Peterson’s home.

19. Garrett made it clear that neither the former occupant nor Defendant Beale were welcome

in his home. Garrett did not consent. Garrett asserted his Constitutional right to refuse

entry into his home. And at no point did Garrett waive that right.

20. Because of Defendant Beale’s actions, Garrett was trapped in his own home. He could

not freely leave this encounter, even in the sanctity of his own property, and was

therefore seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights.

21. With Defendant Beale still outside of Garrett’s home, Garrett called 911 to report that a

police officer was trying to break into his house. Garrett requested help from the police to

stop the unlawful actions of another police officer.

22. Garrett’s call to police and his report of the situation is speech protected by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments.

23. Defendants were infuriated by Garrett’s exercise of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. Rather than recognizing and respecting Garrett’s Constitutional

rights, Defendant Officers escalated their nature of their unlawful activity.

24. Defendant Beale drew his gun and called for backup; Defendant Canada was the first

officer to respond on scene.

25. As soon as Defendant Canada arrived on scene, she drew her gun.

26. When Garrett peeked out the door to see what was happening, Defendants Canada and

Beale pointed their weapons at him.

27. The pointing of a weapon at a person who poses no threat constitutes an excessive and

unreasonable use of force. The officers, having no justifiable reason for aiming their

weapons at Garrett, were doing so solely because Garrett was not obeying the police

officers’ unlawful commands.

28. At all times relevant, Garrett was unarmed and posed no threat of serious bodily harm to

the defendants. All he wanted was to be left alone.

29. Defendant Beale’s own actions demonstrate the non-threatening nature of Garrett.

Defendant Beale sat his gun down on the railing outside Mr. Peterson’s apartment and

left it there for the remainder of the incident.

30. Despite this, Defendants used excessive force against Garrett in violation of Garrett’s

Eighth Amendment rights.

31. Defendant Canada and Defendant Beale were joined by Defendant Meeks, and later

Defendant Vogt.

32. Defendant Canada told Defendants Meeks and Beal that as soon as she got through the

door, she planned on tasering Garrett.

33. Neither Defendant Meeks nor Defendant Beal argued against the planned use of force

upon the forcible unlawful entry.

34. Defendant Meeks then began pushing Defendant Beale in the back, enabling Defendant

Beale to break through Garrett’s door.

35. Unarmed, Defendant Beale proceeded first into the apartment and immediately told

Garrett, “You done fucked up now” and then told Defendant Canada to “tase this


36. Defendant Beale had immediately tackled Garrett, failing to provide Garrett with an

opportunity to comply with the unlawful arrest the Defendant Officers had now initiated.

37. Defendant Canada made no attempt to actually arrest Garrett and instead tasered him


38. When Defendants Beale and Meeks had Garrett’s hands out and Defendant Meeks

instructed Defendant Vogt, who by this time had arrived on scene, to “cuff him,”

Defendant Canada instead ordered Defendant Vogt to step back so she could continue to

taser Garrett.

39. Defendant Canada tasered Garrett repeatedly, including holding down her trigger so the

cycle would last longer. The taser was a form of punishment, not restraint. It was used in

a vindictive manner and with such utter disregard that Defendant Canada even tasered

Defendant Beale.

40. Defendants Beale and Meeks yelled for Defendant Canada to stop deploying her taser

and instead help with the cuffing.

41. After untangling himself from Defendant Canada’s taser wires, Defendant Beale then

attempted to taser Garrett himself.

42. Defendant Canada picked up Defendant Vogt’s weapon, which had fallen to the floor,

and passed it to Defendant Beale.

43. Defendant Beale then decided to kill Garret.

44. At that time, Garrett was sandwiched between Defendants Vogt and Meek; Defendant

Vogt had Garrett’s left arm and Defendant Meeks had Garrett’s right arm. Garrett was

not a threat to Defendants, and at this moment he was more restrained and vulnerable

than at any moment of the encounter.

45. Defendant Vogt had his handcuffs out and was about to handcuff Garrett but instead

Defendant Beale told everyone to step back so he could shoot Garrett.

46. None of the other Defendants made any effort to discourage or prevent Defendant Beale

from using lethal force at this moment.

47. Instead, Defendant Vogt stepped out of the way, and Defendant Beale shot Garrett three


48. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers’ unlawful and unconstitutional

actions, Garrett died on the floor of his own home.

49. During the course of the incident, Defendant Meeks yelled once that Garrett was going

for his own gun, and twice that Garrett was going after Defendant Meeks’ gun.

50. In fact, Garrett was unarmed the entire time and at no point did he have possession,

custody, or control of Defendant Meeks’ gun. The video evidence contradicts any and all

claims that Garrett was attempting to access any of the Defendants’ weapons.

51. Defendant Meeks’ gun never left his holster. In fact, once inside Garrett’s apartment, no

other officer ever pulled their gun or even pointed it at Garrett. The declarations that

Garrett was reaching for a gun were prophylactic utterances meant to justify the

continued escalation of violence by the Defendants.

52. Immediately following the shooting—and before the defendants even learned Garrett’s

name—Defendant Officers acted in concert amongst themselves and their supervisors to

cover up for their misconduct. This included, but is not limited to:

a. Creating a false narrative to justify the unlawful entry;

b. Creating a false narrative regarding the “threat” posed by Garrett;

c. Instructing one another not to give statements;

d. Agreeing to meet to with one another to get their stories straight prior to giving an

official statement;

e. Instructing the involved officers to speak with various third parties prior to giving

an official statement;

f. Using personal communication devices, such as cell phones, instead of radios to

communicate with other officers so as not to leave a record; and

g. Authoring and approving false, inaccurate, and incomplete official reports.

53. According to the Pew Research Center, only about 27% percent of all law enforcement

officers say they have EVER fired their service weapon while on the job. This was

Defendant Beale’s second police-involved shooting in three years.

54. Oklahoma has one of the highest rates of fatal police shootings, per capita, in the United


55. The City of Ada has a disproportionately high number of police-involved shootings and

police-involved deaths. For example:

h. On 7 October 2019, Anthony Meely died being unlawfully arrested and restrained

by Ada officers;

i. On 3 December 2019, Officer Mericle shot and killed a suspect while allegedly

serving a felony warrant;

j. On 5 April 2020, a man was shot and killed in Ada by the Pontotoc County

Sheriff’s Office.

56. Ada Police Officers have shown an open, notorious, and reckless disregard for human life

in their communications with one another and to the public at large, such as through

social media. This includes, but is not limited to:

k. Threatening to shoot and kill protestors;

l. Posting and liking videos of police officers beating unarmed people; and

m. Posting memes and other content that support a “shoot first” mentality.

57. The unjustified entry and use of excessive force to which Mr. Peterson was subjected was

in furtherance of, and consistent with, policies, customs, and/or practices the Defendant


58. The moving force of Plaintiff’s injuries were the unlawful policies and practices of the

Ada Police Department including, but not limited to:

n. Improperly training and supervising officers with respect to warrantless searches

and/or arrests;

o. Improperly training and supervising officers with respect to evaluating whether

persons are or may be unable to comply due to intoxication, a mental health crisis,

or substance abuse;

p. Improperly training and supervising officers with respect to de-escalation;

q. Improperly training and supervising officers with respect to the sanctity of human


r. Improperly training and supervising officers who use force as retaliation against

persons who are perceived by officers as bothersome, annoying, or previously


s. Failing to adequately investigate and discipline officers who write false,

inaccurate, or incomplete reports; and

t. Failing to adequately investigate and discipline officers who violate the rights of


59. Defendant City knew or should have known that due to its clearly deficient training,

supervision, and discipline unconstitutional conduct toward citizens was occurring;

despite this, Defendant City failed to take reasonable measures to alleviate the risks of


60. Accordingly, Defendant City has created, tolerated, and/or maintained a longstanding and

unconstitutional custom by failing to train, supervise, and discipline its officers.

61. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of the defendants, Garrett was

injured, including physical injuries, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, fear,

emotional trauma, mental anguish, the deprivation of his constitutional rights and dignity,

loss of his life, lost time, and attorneys’ fees.